Bill C-58

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things,
(a) amend the scope of the prohibition relating to replacement workers by removing the requirement of demonstrating a purpose of undermining a trade union’s representational capacity, by adding persons whose services must not be used during legal strikes and lockouts and by providing certain exceptions;
(b) prohibit employers from using, during a legal strike or lockout intended to involve the cessation of work by all employees in a bargaining unit, the services of an employee in that unit, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) make the contravention by employers of either of those prohibitions an offence punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 per day;
(d) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations establishing an administrative monetary penalties scheme for the purpose of promoting compliance with those prohibitions; and
(e) amend the maintenance of activities process in order to, among other things, encourage employers and trade unions to reach an earlier agreement respecting activities to be maintained in the event of a legal strike or lockout, encourage faster decision making by the Canada Industrial Relations Board when parties are unable to agree and reduce the need for the Minister of Labour to make referrals to the Board.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

My name is Sean Strickland, and I serve as the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions. We are the national voice for over 600,000 skilled tradespeople in Canada who belong to 14 international unions and work in 60 occupations and trades.

I'm pleased to be here today along with my colleagues to advocate for speedy passage of Bill C-58, and remind this committee how critical this legislation is.

Banning replacement workers will protect workers' rights, prioritize the collective bargaining process and get workers back to the job. It will stabilize the bargaining process for federally regulated industries and positively impact almost a million workers.

When workers decide to withdraw their labour and strike, these decisions are not taken lightly. Generally, it's the last option after all other bargaining approaches have failed. Allowing the use of replacement workers—scabs—undermines the bargaining powers of workers in the negotiation process and removes the incentive for employers to avoid a strike or lockout. Strikes during which employers choose to hire replacement workers take longer to resolve, and that hurts families and communities.

We don't have to look back very far to understand the negative effects replacement workers can have on our workforce. In British Columbia, 238 workers attempted to bargain with LTS Global Solutions, a subsidiary of Ledcor, as a local established under the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213. Since 2017, they had sought a collective agreement to improve working conditions, establish job security and secure fair wages. The majority of those workers were technicians, installing and repairing telecommunications equipment as contractors for Telus.

After union certification, the employer, LTS, refused to meet with the union for bargaining, and after two years without a collective agreement, the workers voted to go on strike. Rather than engaging in good-faith collective bargaining, LTS responded by bringing in replacement workers. As a result, the strike ended up lasting nearly six years, with the deal only occurring in June 2023.

It took a unanimous ruling from the Canada Industrial Relations Board to end it. Why? As telecommunications workers, they fell under federal labour laws. Unlike other workers in B.C., who were protected, there was no incentive for LTS to get back to the bargaining table because LTS could continue with business as usual, ignore its obligations to the unionized employees and use its considerable resources to drag the whole process through the courts for almost six long years. This has to change, as it has in some provinces.

Provincially, we've seen similar legislation successfully implemented in both B.C. and Quebec. British Columbia's labour relations code prohibits employers from using replacement workers, regardless of whether they're being paid to do the work. In Quebec, the labour code represents the most comprehensive ban on replacement workers. It covers almost all workers, except health care and public safety workers, and those sectors regulated by the Canada Labour Code.

Obviously, there's a gap between the Canada Labour Code and provincial labour codes. In B.C. and Quebec, that needs to be addressed for the benefit of all federally regulated workers. The success in both provinces amplifies how banning replacement workers protects workers' rights, improves collective bargaining and reduces the duration of strikes when they do occur.

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I urge you to ensure speedy passage of this bill. Let's get this done for Canadian workers and their families.

I look forward to the discussion and your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Good afternoon, committee members. I will call the meeting to order.

The clerk has advised that we have a quorum and that those appearing virtually have been sound-tested and are good.

Welcome to meeting number 108 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and virtually using Zoom.

I would like to make a few comments, primarily for the benefit of the witnesses who are new to us.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

You can choose to speak in the official language of your choice.

In the room, interpretation services are available by using the headset and selecting the language of your choice. For those here virtually, please select the globe icon at the bottom of your screen to choose the language of your choice.

If there is a breakdown in interpretation services, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it is being corrected.

For those in the room, please make sure your earpiece is not close to the microphone, because it will create popping, which can be harmful to the interpreters.

Please direct any questions you may have through the chair. To get my attention, please raise your hand. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon at the bottom of your screen.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, February 27, 2024, the committee is continuing its study on Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Appearing in the first hour today, we have, from Canada's Building Trades Unions, Sean Strickland, executive director; from Teamsters Canada, by video conference, Mariam Abou-Dib, executive director, government affairs; and from the United Steelworkers union, Nicolas Lapierre, assistant to the Quebec director, who is here in the room.

Welcome. Each of you will have five minutes or less for your opening statement.

We will begin with Mr. Strickland for five minutes.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have heard testimony not only at this committee but also at the trade committee, so I'll correct your assumption as well that replacement workers prolong strikes. Everyone is saying that replacement workers, whether put in place during a lockout or during a strike, prolong the strike, because, again, no one is at the table when they're there. That is what we've heard at this committee and at other committees, and through consultations.

On that note, FETCO had pointed to the track record of previous bills banning the use of replacement workers, which have not been passed in the House of Commons. However, it's important to note the differences between those bills and Bill C-58, which promotes a tripartite approach to consulting with the unions, government and businesses. This included unions and business leaders sitting shoulder to shoulder at multiple round tables. There were extensive consultations that included round tables, 55 stakeholders and 71 written submissions.

I understand that the consultations were even extended to January 31, 2023, and, at FETCO's request, included many other businesses and stakeholders. We listened and we consulted broadly in a tripartite approach, and that informed our legislation.

Was FETCO consulted on the drafting of the bills preceding C-58 that you pointed to as not being successful?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to be here today to hear the testimony from the previous group of folks and these folks on this really important legislation ahead of us.

I've been on both sides of the bargaining table. I've bargained for the union and I've bargained with the union. At the end of the day, the best deals are at the table. That's the purpose of this—to keep people at the table. When people walk away from the table, no deals are being done. There are no negotiations.

My first question is for you, Derrick. One thing Bill C-58 talks about is a “maintenance of activities”. Your organization, FETCO, has claimed that this bill will lead to such critical services as 911 being cut off due to a strike. I did some research into the maintenance of activities process. I found that in 2003, Telus reached a maintenance of activities agreement with Telecommunications Workers Union. It stipulated that members would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, during the labour dispute to repair telecommunications services for police, fire, ambulance, 911, hospitals and the Coast Guard.

I noticed that in the last panel, Mr. Collins asked the unions if these agreements were normal. In fact, they said they couldn't imagine a scenario where there wouldn't be such an agreement in place.

To FETCO, when you put out communications against the bill, did you know that the maintenance of activities process was meant to maintain these 911 services? There was some reaction from the public, but I would like you to explain that particular scenario that I went through and researched and the importance that 911 services will still continue.

[Derrick Hynes, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communications]

Thank you, Chair.

I appear before you today as a representative from FETCO, which is an association that represents most of Canada's major airlines, courier companies, marine ports, railways, telecom firms and others in their capacity as employers.

FETCO members employ nearly two-thirds of all workers in the federally regulated private sector. Our members are overwhelmingly unionized, with decades of productive collective bargaining with most major private sector unions.

A lot has been said over the last few months related to Bill C-58, which will effectively ban the use of replacement workers during a work stoppage. Unfortunately, from our perspective, much of what has been said to date is simply not rooted in documented reality.

This debate needs to be focused on evidence. The literature proves two things clearly. Replacement worker bans result in more strikes and longer strikes. These bans incentivize strike activity and discourage collective bargaining.

Those most affected by replacement worker bans are everyday Canadians. When major employers like airlines, ports, railways and telecoms are shut down, supply chains break. Shipments are halted, packages are not delivered, passengers are stranded, Internet and cable services are shut down and banking stops. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are affected because the critical services provided by major federally regulated organizations are no longer possible.

To date, neither the government nor any union has presented a shred of documented evidence that demonstrates how this improves the collective bargaining process. In fact, the Minister of Labour reminds us that 96% of all bargaining in the federal private sector ends without a work stoppage.

While it is not perfect, the system is working. This bill is proposing to fix a problem that does not exist. This debate was settled 30 years ago in a comprehensive review of the Canada Labour Code. Balance exists. Nothing is gained, that can be demonstrably proven, from banning replacement workers. Government should not be introducing legislation that is sure to add instability to already vulnerable supply chains.

We need to set the record straight on what a replacement worker is. These are not scores of random people hired off the street. These are typically current employees of the company, such as managers, supervisors or contractors with whom the employer has a pre-existing relationship. These are temporary measures.

Replacement workers keep the lights on and provide a basic level of service until the strike ends. This is the collective bargaining system in action. It's not a flaw, but an actual design feature. When the strike ends, all unionized employees go back to work and temporary replacement workers leave.

What is sometimes hidden in this debate is the fact that a replacement worker ban gives very small bargaining units in large organizations an ability to shut down the entire organization. This can happen at an airline, an airport, a railway, a marine port or in telecom. The extended supply chain impacts can be extensive.

Federal elected officials have known for decades this is a bad idea. Though it has come up at least a dozen times in the past 15 years, it has always been rejected by parliamentarians. There's nothing in this bill or the process that led to it that makes it any different from past efforts.

Public policy should be based on documented facts. This is not that.

As employers, we live in the real world. We recognize, given that we are here today, that this bill seems to be getting traction with MPs. Our preference is that you reject this bill in its entirety, but if you're going to proceed, we sincerely urge you to amend it in several ways as specifically requested in our submission to you that we filed recently.

In short, first, this bill needs more flexibility as it relates to the use of contractors. The bill is too restrictive in this space. Let us not lose sight of the fact that contractors are workers, too, and many have long-lasting relationships with the organizations I represent.

Two, unionized employees who want to work should not be prohibited from doing so. If you agree that we live in an era of cost of living challenges, why would we take away anyone’s right to choose to go to work?

Three, exceptions to these rules must accommodate national economic interest or national economic security as they relate to both replacement workers and essential services. The current bar is simply too high. It includes threat to life, threat of destruction of property and threat of environmental disaster. These are apocalyptic-level exceptions.

Finally, dates related to these provisions should back up, we believe, to the notice of dispute rather than the notice to bargain.

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry for going over.

[Todd Lewis, Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Hello, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Todd Lewis, and I am first vice-president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I grow grain, canola and lentils just south of Regina, Saskatchewan, in a little town called Gray.

The CFA is Canada’s largest general farm organization. We represent over 190,000 farmers and farm families across Canada, and they are the heart of the Canadian agri-food system, which generates $143.8 billion of Canada's gross domestic product—around 7%.

Canadian farmers proudly produce high-quality agriculture and agri-food products, of which over 92 billion dollars' worth was exported to trade partners around the world in 2022. Canada is an exporting nation. The flow of goods generated from trade is intimately tied to our standard of living. Countries around the world purchase Canadian agricultural products due to our reputation as a reliable supplier of high-quality products. However, if these products are unable to reach overseas customers due to a prolonged labour disruption, this has a direct impact on Canadian farmers, the Canadian economy and our reliability as an exporting nation.

For example, as noted in the final report of the national supply chain task force, labour disruptions in 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 “all affected how logistics and supply chain decision-makers and international businesses view Canada’s reliability as a place to do business.” It said that “even the threat of strikes or lockouts negatively affects the operation of the national transportation supply chain and, in turn, Canada’s reputation as a destination of choice for doing business.”

Let me be very clear: We recognize the importance of free and fair collective bargaining in Canada, and we support the rights of unionized workers to negotiate fairly with their employers. However, we believe that the movement of agriculture and agri-food products should be viewed as necessary, and certain exemptions must be made to the proposed legislation, Bill C-58, to recognize the importance of maintaining the movement of these goods during labour disputes.

There is precedent for this. In 1998, amendments were made to the Canada Labour Code, sponsored by then minister of labour Lawrence MacAulay, which prohibited the cessation of work among longshore workers loading grain vessels during a strike or lockout. However, these amendments only apply to bulk grain movement and do not apply to container movement of grain and perishable goods.

Prohibiting the use of replacement workers in federally regulated workplaces during a strike or lockout could cripple Canada’s food supply chains.

Because the railways have a dual monopoly over the shipment of grain in Canada, producers and shippers have very limited options. In most cases, they have only one option to maintain service during a labour disruption.

As a result, we recommend that the employer's ability to re-assign existing non-unionized workers within a company, including management staff, be maintained when necessary to maintain Canada’s domestic food and feed supply. Our hope would be that management could still provide critical functions during such stoppages to allow for the flow of agricultural goods. In our view, this would maintain the integrity of the collective bargaining process by preventing a return to full capacity, while at the same time providing a means of keeping some minimal level of service and the flow of agricultural goods where there are no other options for Canadian shippers.

For this to be reflected in Bill C-58, we recommend the addition of a new paragraph (c) under proposed subsection 94(7) “Exception—threat, destruction or damage” of the Canada Labour Code, stating that “the use of the services is necessary to maintain the flow of essential goods necessary for the maintenance and preservation of Canada’s domestic food and feed supply and global food security.”

The agricultural sector has faced seven work stoppages over the past six years alone. Prolonged work stoppages not only threaten our international reputation but also have real impacts on Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak today. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Caroline Senneville]

Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525 were both anti-union bills, in our view. They were aimed at making unionization more difficult and, once unions were formed, at reducing their scope of action. In our opinion, this violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which, I repeat, guarantees the right of association.

As I said at the outset, Bill C‑58 will indeed transform the world of work and its vision in Canada. That is not insignificant.

In Quebec, the statistics are looked at every year. We saw that after the adoption of anti-scab legislation in 1977, the number of strikes didn't increase. What has decreased is violence and the number of ambulances on picket lines.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Thank you, Chair, and good morning.

Good morning to my colleagues.

Thank you to our witnesses this morning.

I think if there's ever been an example of a party that doesn't want to talk about legislation, Canadians can see that today. The Conservative Party wants to talk about everything but this legislation. I am not going to talk about how a turkey cost $100 two years ago and I bought one for $35 two weeks ago. I am not going to talk about that.

Ms. Senneville, my question for you is this: Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 were two stunning pieces of legislation that the Conservative Party brought forth when it was in government that were absolutely detrimental and devastating to unions.

I would like you to talk to us, for the record, about Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 and tell us what they did to unions. I want you to also comment on Bill C-58 and how important it is. I want you to dispel the myth that unions want to strike.

[Robert Ashton]

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see the relevance to Bill C-58 when it comes to the unemployment rate in Canada. We're here to talk about anti-scab legislation, not the unemployment rate.

I am not here to give one political party or another political party the ability to score points, one against the other, so I'll decline to comment.

Thank you.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before asking the witnesses questions, I would just like to point out the presence in the room of Sébastien, a Videotron worker in Gatineau who has been locked out for more than six months now. He has to deal with the fact that replacement workers are taking his work and his salary. I think it's important to show that we're not just talking about events that happened 10 or 20 years ago. Right now, workers are still suffering the consequences of the use of replacement workers. My thanks to Sébastien for being with us today.

Ms. Senneville, you said you were touched to be here because this was an essential bill and a historic moment. I want to tell you that I feel the same way.

I would like to hear more from you about what Bill C‑58 will do for the members of the CSN in certain federations and in certain sectors. As a union leader, can you tell us what will change compared to what you have experienced in recent years?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

You used the image of Swiss cheese to talk about the holes in the bill. Quebec's anti-strikebreaking law makes it impossible to hire a worker from another bargaining unit before a strike notice or notice to commence collective bargaining is given. Under Bill C‑58, however, such tactics would be allowed. Even though the bill aims to prevent the use of replacement workers, it does allow for exceptions.

In your opinion, how does this undermine the very spirit of the bill?

[Marty Warren, National Director, United Steelworkers Union]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, thank you to the clerk and to the members of the committee for the chance to join you today.

I'm Marty Warren. I'm the national director for the United Steelworkers Union. The USW is the largest private sector union in North America, with 225,000 members in nearly every economic sector across Canada, including federally regulated members in rail, telecommunications, airport security and ports.

Steelworkers have been part of the anti-scab fight for decades. Our experience shows that bans on replacement workers improve labour relations, reduce the number and lengths of conflicts, and lead to better working and living standards for workers.

Strikes and lockouts are hard enough on the community, but the use of scabs pits workers against workers, neighbours against neighbours and, sometimes, even family members against family members. Further, it leads to decades of poor labour relations moving forward.

Anti-scab legislation already exists in B.C. and Quebec. Soon, Manitoba will be added to the list. We were happy when the NDP included the anti-scab legislation in the supply and confidence agreement, and when the Liberals tabled that legislation.

That said, it still falls short. It currently has loopholes, and employers will hire scabs and not live up to the intent of the legislation. Further, the delay of its coming into force is not reasonable. It's way too long.

As you can see from our submission, we have some clear recommendations to solve the problems.

First, anyone doing the job of a worker who is on strike or locked out must be included in the ban, no matter when they were hired. As it stands, as long as they were hired or contracted on or before the notice to bargain was served, employers could still use scabs who are from outside of the bargaining unit, from other locations, managerial or confidential employees, or contractors or employees from another employer.

Of course, we accept exceptions for work needed to prevent an imminent threat to life, health and safety, destruction of property or environmental damage.

This brings me to the second recommendation, which is that an agreement about who would perform the conservation work needs to be made between both the employer and the union. The bill currently leaves it to the employer alone. If both sides can't agree, it should go to the Industrial Relations Board. Unions should have the right of first refusal to perform such work.

Third, any temporary employee hired to do conservation work cannot automatically become an employee in the bargaining unit. The current language would give preferential reinstatement to scabs over existing employees after the strike or lockout. That just doesn’t make sense.

Fourth, it needs to be clear that dependent contractors are not allowed to perform bargaining committee work. The bill specifically excludes dependent contractors from the ban, even though the Labour Code defines “employee” to include dependent contractors. The exception needs to be removed from proposed paragraph 94(4)(b).

Fifth, the waiting period for the IRB needs to be cut from 90 days to 45 days. At very least, the IRB needs to issue an interim or bottom-line decision within 45 days. Employers already take advantage of delays at the IRB for months and even years. Again, that has to be fixed, not allowed to get worse.

Finally, and very importantly, the delay before the implementation of this bill, once passed, needs to be scrapped. We have heard from public sector servants with experience that there's no need for this delay. If the government is serious about the law, it needs to come into force before the next election. It's far easier for the next government, whatever stripe it may be, to scrap a law that people haven't yet been able to use.

Workers can't afford to wait. In just the last year, we had members at our tugboat operations in Quebec and our telecom workers in B.C. stuck on the line when scabs came through.

In both of these cases, if they had been provincially regulated, they would have had the protection of anti-scab legislation, but since they were not, they did not.

For the good of all federally regulated workers, and to set an example to the provinces who still fall short, please accept and pass these amendments, and let Bill C-58 pass for implementation.

Thank you.

[Robert Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning from B.C. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to be before you all today.

My name is Rob Ashton. I'm the president of ILWU Canada, which represents 16,000 workers in B.C. and Saskatchewan in a variety of sectors, our largest sector being the maritime sector.

Members of ILWU Canada strongly support Bill C-58, and we urge this committee to wholeheartedly support this bill to make it better for workers who vote in Canada.

Strikes and lockouts are not easy on workers, and that's why the decision to go on strike is made by the rank and file of the union. The decision to go on strike is one that workers make as a last resort to try to get a fairly negotiated settlement with their employers, but it's definitely at a financial loss for these workers.

In regard to a lockout, the worker has no say in this, and employers impose this on them to break them as a united workforce. In fact, employers use this option to cripple workers financially in the hopes they will become desperate and accept a lesser deal just to go back to work.

Employers use terms like “team member” or “you're part of the family”, but then turn around and use scabs when the bottom line might be impacted. Employers that use scabs do not, never have and never will, care about their workers. They only see a path towards more profits, and in doing so, they hurt their employees, while tearing communities apart. In my opinion, employers who use scabs have no regard for these consequences.

When a strike or lockout happens, employers currently have an option to use scab labour. This puts the balance of power in the employer's hands, as it keeps their products moving, while at the same time turning worker against worker. This is a weapon of the bosses, and can and will be used to break the backs of Canadians so they can pocket more of the profits that are made off the backs of their employees.

In the history of ILWU Canada in the longshore division, scabs were utilized on June 18, 1935. This day has been immortalized as the Battle of Ballantyne Pier. On that day, longshore workers marched to the terminal to explain to the scabs that scabbing on them was not the right thing to do, and that standing shoulder to shoulder with their fellow workers would help strengthen all workers and give the longshoremen of the day a better chance at the bargaining table. What happened was these workers and allies were attacked by police and private constables with batons and other weapons, who also used tear gas as well at the women's auxiliary aid station. This, I might add, was the first time tear gas was used on Canadians in Canada. This was done just because they were there.

The use of scabs created conditions for violence perpetrated by employers and others against peaceful picketers, who were only fighting for a fair collective agreement. This attack is an example of what some employers and some governments feel is the only way to end a strike or a lockout while scabs are being used.

We wholeheartedly support Bill C-58 so that history does not have a chance to repeat itself and that will get workers get a fair shake to get a freely negotiated collective agreement by the banning of scab labour federally.

We are asking with urgency that this committee reduce the wait time for implementation of this bill to zero wait time. Canadian workers need this bill passed and put into law with zero delay to level the playing field, as they say. Canadian workers have waited long enough and expect our elected representatives to do what is right for workers.

In closing, I'd like to offer a message to the working class. If you are an environmentalist or a pipeline worker, a small shop owner or a longshoreman—we're all workers—do not let the employing class split us, as division is the weapon of the employing class.

To our elected officials as well as anyone else listening, I leave you all with a question from Pete Seeger in regard to Bill C-58—Which Side Are You On?

Thank you for giving me this time to speak.

[Caroline Senneville, President, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Good morning. Thank you for having us.

I'll give a brief introduction to the CSN. The CSN is a union organization dating back over 100 years in Quebec and Canada. We have over 330,000 members in all industries, in both the private and public sectors. In terms of federally regulated organizations, we represent employees in the communications and grain elevator industries. The CSN also counts the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers among its members. We call ourselves the federation of national trade unions because we're active only in Quebec and Canada. We don't have any international ties.

I'm pleased and touched to be here today. You're studying a bill of vital importance to all Canadian workers. This doesn't happen often. There are all kinds of bills. However, for Canadian workers, Bill C‑58 is essential. I think that many people share this opinion. All parties in the House voted in favour of this bill at second reading.

As you know—and I'll say it again—the right to associate is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent years, this right has been tied in with good faith negotiations. When we associate, we have the right to negotiate in good faith. We also have the right to use a balance of power to negotiate in good faith and obtain a good collective agreement. Two Supreme Court rulings have set out these rights.

It's simple for us. If replacement workers are allowed in the event of a labour dispute, this flies in the face of the constitutional rights of Canadian workers as they now stand.

A strike is no picnic. The decision isn't made lightly. Labour codes provide a strict framework for exercising the right to strike and for obtaining a right to strike. We must have a secret ballot. When we're alone in the voting booth and we mark X in favour of a strike, we know when it will start, but we don't know when it will end. We often talk about the economic impact of a strike. However, these effects are mainly felt by the people exercising their right to strike. The decision is never made lightly.

For us, the right to strike is part of the balance of power. When the employer can hire replacement workers, it really upsets the balance of power. It even eliminates that balance, especially in the case of a lockout. Think about a lockout. A lockout isn't a democratic decision. It's a management decision. There isn't any vote on a lockout. The employer can make the decision well in advance and prepare by hiring workers or preparing to hire replacement workers. The employer holds all the cards. The balance of power on the workers' side is gone. In our opinion, this isn't right. I would even say that it completely contravenes the spirit of the charter or the latest Supreme Court rulings.

We're here to talk about Bill C‑58. We have some specific comments on the bill. We're pleased to see that it takes into account the new work reality and environment, including telework, and different workplaces. We come from a province with anti‑scab legislation. We're happy about that. However, the legislation has been in place for a long time, and adjustments are needed. This federal bill is completely up to date, and we welcome it.

That said, one of our main criticisms concerns the list of exceptions regarding employees who may not be hired as scabs. We find that the list of exceptions is quite long, and that it undermines the spirit or purpose of the bill. I would say, to use an image, that we're starting to see a few too many holes, and not enough cheese.

In our view, the only real exception that justifies hiring replacement workers is when essential services must be provided. Let's be clear. Essential services come into play when people's lives and safety are at risk. In Quebec, we have operated in this manner for over 40 years. No one has ever died or gone hungry because of a strike.

We also hope that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will have the resources needed to ensure the implementation of this bill. When a bill is passed, only half the work is done. The next step must involve ensuring the implementation of the provisions in the bill. It's vital to have an investigative process. We're all law‑abiding citizens here. However, if people knew that there weren't any police on the highway, I'm not sure that they would respect the speed limit.

In closing, since this bill is essential, we would like to see it come into force as soon as possible.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

I call this meeting to order. It is 8:15, and the clerk has advised me that we have quorum. The witnesses and committee members who are appearing virtually have been sound-tested, and all are good.

Welcome to meeting number 107 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person, as well as remotely using Zoom.

I would like to give a few points to the participants.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. If you are participating by video conference, you can click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when not speaking.

Those on Zoom have the choice, as do those in the room, of participating in the official language of their choice. In the room, interpretation is available using the headset and earpiece; just select the language of your choice. Those appearing virtually can click on the globe icon at the bottom of their Surface and choose the language of their choice.

If there is an issue with sound quality and interpretation, please get my attention. We'll suspend while it's being corrected. Those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” function.

As well, please direct all questions and inquiries through me, the chair.

Those in the room, please remember to keep your earpieces away from the microphones to prevent injury to the interpreters, who do an extremely valuable service for us. As well, if you could remember to speak slowly, that will give them the opportunity to translate effectively.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee is continuing its study of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Industrial Relations Board Regulations, 2012.

Appearing in the first hour, we have, from the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, Caroline Senneville, president, who will deliver the opening comments; Ioanna Egarhos, lawyer; and Pascal Jean political adviser. From the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, we have Robert Ashton, president, by video conference. From the United Steelworkers union, we have Marty Warren, national director, who will deliver the opening statement; and Meg Gingrich, assistant to the national director.

We will begin with Ms. Senneville.

For your opening comments, you have five minutes or less, please. You have the floor.